This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Lets talk character classes  (Read 6429 times)

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2021, 03:56:58 PM »
Even though D&D is it's own genre - that doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the mainstream tastes of the time. The public's tastes in fantasy had changed between the mid 1970s and the late 1990s.

It is more things players wanted and were submitting gradually filtering into the core game or one of the settings.

Much harder and dangerous magic? Masque of the Red Death has that.
Human-centric or Human only settings? TSR put out several, mostly in their historical setting lines. But also in AD&D Conan.
Non-Human-centric settings? BX/BEXMI did that with the various Creature Crucible setting books and some of the Gazeteers focus on the demi-human populations.
Easier magic? Dragon had that and 2e had one or two forays into it in one form or another.

Also even things like how dragons look has changed. 2es dragons look like they are inspired by Dragonslayer for example.

Wicked Woodpecker of West
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • ?
  • Posts: 299
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2021, 04:04:40 PM »
Quote
It strikes me there is a difference between Merlin in for example the Guantlet remake throwing firebolts, lightning strokes, teleporting a short distance and such, versus Merlin performing a multi hour ritual out of combat that creates a small squadron of animated armor guardians that can later be summoned in battle, D&D just straight mixes these altogether and separates them by spell level. To me one is "using magic" while the other is "casting a spell". Looking at real world historical lore concerning the practice of magic it is almost always things you could never do in combat; you draw a funky circle invoke assorted spirits burn some newt testicle in a brazier and then after that you can call upon the power to affect the weather for a number of days. What D&D calls spell prep/memorization history calls the casting, and what D&D calls the casting history cites as the use of the already cast spell.

Well it's based on one very quirky magic method from post-apo sci-fantasy Gygax had big boner for. So there's that. Thanks God Sanderson was not a thing then or we would all eat copper coins to cast spells.


BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2021, 04:10:03 PM »
2e made a mistake folding all spells into a generalist mage list. Even the specialists were only barred from a small percentage of the huge list.

In the 3.5 SRD, there are 40-50 spells per level, for spell levels 1 to 3. In B/X, there are 12. For clerics, it drops to 8. That's more than enough. Mages who specialize should have fewer. Perhaps far fewer.

As a bonus, limited custom spell lists make casters fell genuinely different again.

A related issue I noticed is that in the transition, spell levels are no longer a reliable indicator of a spell's power. Originally clerics only went up to rank 7 spells, but in 3e their spell list was stretched to cover up to rank 9 and thus there is a distinct difference in parameters like damage compared to wizard spells of the same level. This is particularly noticeable for spells unique to the ranger or paladin, as they are limited to reach up to rank 4 and so their spells are significantly more powerful than those of other classes. At least if I remember correctly.
It was the second stretch, because the original spells (in the brown/white box) went up to magic-user 6, and cleric 5. There was a pretty clear progression in power, with levels 5/6 clearly intended as capstone spells (raise dead, control the entire battlefield with weather effects, etc.).

Then Supplement I: Greyhawk expanded the list to magic-user 9 and cleric 7. The progression was no longer as clear -- there's more of a difference between 3rd and 5th level spells than between 6th and 8th, for instance. And a lot of the new spells felt gimmicky, or were slightly amped up versions of earlier spells, or were more defined in terms of game mechanics than adding anything new. Though that's only really true for the new interim levels -- the new capstone spells at 7th/9th level are probably the biggest jump in spell power since the 2nd/3rd level break (wish, gate, time stop, shapechange, etc.).

So that's why stretching the priestly spell list out to 9 levels makes it feel so attenuated. Instead of being spread over 9 levels, too many important spell effects are clustered in the first half. Raise dead should be at least 7th level, for instance.

This is why I prefer Ars Magica-style syntactic magic systems. Even if you don't let players invent their own spells on the fly, it is at least useful to have clear guidelines for creating spells and balancing spell levels. You could even have a hybrid syntactic/vancian casting mechanic by requiring casters to prepare spells in advance.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2021, 04:43:31 PM »
Oh, you're one of those. Everything is partisan politics to you.
If by "those" you mean a MAGA-loving Roman Catholic, then yes, I'm one of "those."

I know its hard for some to imagine, but RPG system preference is largely unconnected from politics.

4E delivered on my itch for interesting and mechanically supported martial classes who didn't need to rely on magic items to function (as soon as 4E introduced inherent bonuses we never used anything else) and spellcasters that worked more like they do in pop culture in a way even better than Palladium Fantasy could... thus my love for 4E.

Nor is it partisan or political to examine broad-based cultural influences on game system development. People of every political spectrum read Harry Potter and watched the Lord of Rings films growing up. People of every political spectrum watched Buffy (and funny how the whole addiction angle only turned up in season six then all-but disappeared in season seven and no other spellcaster in either it or Angel demonstrated addiction issues) and went to see Dr. Strange (another example of modern perceptions on magic).

Frankly, every 4E fan I've ever met personally has been exclusively on the right side of political issues and the only TSR fans I know personally are neck-bearded old Lefties (I don't know any OSR fans personally... its just not a thing in my part of the country; if you want old school you just play AD&D or BECMI).

As to Harry Potter, I think the author ran out of steam in Book Five and caved to the loudest fan theories for the conclusion, so I don't necessarily blame you for not having read it (I doubt it will age as well as Tolkien has), but to thereby pretend it had no cultural impact and therefore should not influence the most popular fantasy RPG on the market feels a little on the myopic side.

In terms of pros and cons, the primary pro which has definitely entered every version of D&D since late 3.5e brought us reserve feats is basic at-will combat spells that are fired off with one or two word phrases and a simple gesture with their focus/implement. Most spell combats play out more like gun fights than anything, just with effects like paralysis or unconsciousness or burns more common than outright death (until the main villains finally show up starting around Goblet of Fire and the use of killing curses by them get more prevalent). In terms of use limit, you get tired eventually, but no more so than swinging a sword or firing a bow repeatedly would.

The primary con of the system in Harry Potter is that its essentially skill based. You have to know the words and gestures and be able to perform them precisely in order to bring about an effect. Do it incorrectly and at best nothing happens, at worst you or the target suffer various magical mishaps (one example was an less skilled wizard tried to mend a broken bone and instead removed all the bones from the subject's arm).

A related con is that you need a particular implement (a specially constructed wand in the case of Harry Potter) to reliably perform magic. Wandless magic is possible, but extremely difficult (akin to a -20 to your Use Magic check). Thus, disarming a wizard of their wand can also put them out of a fight.

A less obvious con of the system is that its somewhat genetic-based. You're either a born wizard/witch or you're not. If you're not you could perform a spell perfectly and nothing will happen. If you are then untrained young wizards sometimes cause spontaneous magic by accident.

As WWoW points out, its not an entirely coherent system of magic in the sense that there's zero attempt at any sort of balance or explanation of its origins or why doing X produces Y results, but fans of the series could still take a look at the AD&D wizard and say "there is no way I can create my House Ravenclaw style PC" while they could take a look at the 4E or 5e wizard and absolutely see how the basics of emulating the HP-style casting in the system would work.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 04:47:11 PM by Chris24601 »

Wicked Woodpecker of West
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • ?
  • Posts: 299
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2021, 05:49:11 PM »
Quote
As to Harry Potter, I think the author ran out of steam in Book Five and caved to the loudest fan theories for the conclusion, so I don't necessarily blame you for not having read it (I doubt it will age as well as Tolkien has), but to thereby pretend it had no cultural impact and therefore should not influence the most popular fantasy RPG on the market feels a little on the myopic side.

TBH while I had simmilar feelings while reading all of it, after re-reading I must say 5-7 is best for me. Christian themes most clearly visible, not overblown but interesting symmetry based on medieval alchemic theories (I once read rant of some more eastern-inclined occultist who predicted some of stuff in Tome 7 based on quite common traditional patterns, but failed in those aspects where he was trying to use clearly Far East concepts like chakras ;) ), and darkness more interesting then very fine but one-time scares previous tomes excelled in. Though definitely they lack good redaction - I think publishers on this stage were just on "print whatever she shall bring you".

Quote
As WWoW points out, its not an entirely coherent system of magic in the sense that there's zero attempt at any sort of balance or explanation of its origins or why doing X produces Y results, but fans of the series could still take a look at the AD&D wizard and say "there is no way I can create my House Ravenclaw style PC" while they could take a look at the 4E or 5e wizard and absolutely see how the basics of emulating the HP-style casting in the system would work.

Yeah. I must say despite being HP nerd for many years, and D&D player I have never thought about it.
Then generally I'm not that a fan of neither of magic systems - because there is no one - just balanced mechanics in D&D, and whatever Rowling needs for plot in HP. I grow more into not necessarily hard and strict systems, but systems that has some meaning within world and not just serving plots or games.

Dresden Files, World of Darkness, Sanderson Cosmere subsystems, even Warhammer (after few tweaks) or Tolkien (not as soft as people are seeing him).

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2021, 06:31:10 PM »
Dresden Files, World of Darkness, Sanderson Cosmere subsystems, even Warhammer (after few tweaks) or Tolkien (not as soft as people are seeing him).
Metaphysics aside (and on this board saying "consensual reality" summons BoxCrayonTales more consistently than repeating the name of an Elder God three times does in Lovecraft), my preferred mechanical magic system is the one in Mage20, particularly in conjunction with the overflow book (the core book material blew out the page count so much they managed THREE books of 100+ pages from the cut material) "How Do You DO That?" which was entirely rules based (none of the usual in-character explanations WoD is famous for) of which spheres at which levels you'd need to pull off just about any effect they could think of using Process-based Determinism (i.e. spheres needed depends on the process used, not the end result achieved).

In general, the idea that you build each spell on the fly from general spheres of knowledge with your connection to magic and willpower determining how quickly and how large the effects could be is about the most cinematic magic system I've found... particularly once you layer paradigm (this is the source of my magic), practices (this is how I express my magic) and props (these are the tools I use in that expression) atop it.

Strip out the WoD fluff, declare a single paradigm (and practices and props if needed) and you can emulate just about any fantasy magic system. I once even had a PC with the paradigm of D&D/Vancian magic is real and used Entropy to set triggers on his precast spells each morning so that while his spells were cast as extended rituals they were left hanging until the contingent trigger was met (a specific word and gesture combo) with the main limit on spells per day being the difficulty increase for each additional hanging/ongoing spell).

My own system is obviously my preference for a high fantasy setting.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2021, 06:46:59 PM »
Dresden Files, World of Darkness, Sanderson Cosmere subsystems, even Warhammer (after few tweaks) or Tolkien (not as soft as people are seeing him).
Metaphysics aside (and on this board saying "consensual reality" summons BoxCrayonTales more consistently than repeating the name of an Elder God three times does in Lovecraft), my preferred mechanical magic system is the one in Mage20, particularly in conjunction with the overflow book (the core book material blew out the page count so much they managed THREE books of 100+ pages from the cut material) "How Do You DO That?" which was entirely rules based (none of the usual in-character explanations WoD is famous for) of which spheres at which levels you'd need to pull off just about any effect they could think of using Process-based Determinism (i.e. spheres needed depends on the process used, not the end result achieved).

In general, the idea that you build each spell on the fly from general spheres of knowledge with your connection to magic and willpower determining how quickly and how large the effects could be is about the most cinematic magic system I've found... particularly once you layer paradigm (this is the source of my magic), practices (this is how I express my magic) and props (these are the tools I use in that expression) atop it.

Strip out the WoD fluff, declare a single paradigm (and practices and props if needed) and you can emulate just about any fantasy magic system. I once even had a PC with the paradigm of D&D/Vancian magic is real and used Entropy to set triggers on his precast spells each morning so that while his spells were cast as extended rituals they were left hanging until the contingent trigger was met (a specific word and gesture combo) with the main limit on spells per day being the difficulty increase for each additional hanging/ongoing spell).

My own system is obviously my preference for a high fantasy setting.
It’s called a syntactic magic system and it’s used in several rules sets including Ars Magica (which was the precursor to World of Darkness) and GURPS.
http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/2016/02/mechanics-syntactic-magic.html

Slipshot762

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 480
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2021, 06:53:42 PM »
So far my thinking is going in this direction:


BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2021, 06:54:40 PM »
So far my thinking is going in this direction:


Neat.

Wicked Woodpecker of West
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • ?
  • Posts: 299
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2021, 07:40:48 PM »
Quote
Metaphysics aside (and on this board saying "consensual reality" summons BoxCrayonTales more consistently than repeating the name of an Elder God three times does in Lovecraft), my preferred mechanical magic system is the one in Mage20, particularly in conjunction with the overflow book (the core book material blew out the page count so much they managed THREE books of 100+ pages from the cut material) "How Do You DO That?" which was entirely rules based (none of the usual in-character explanations WoD is famous for) of which spheres at which levels you'd need to pull off just about any effect they could think of using Process-based Determinism (i.e. spheres needed depends on the process used, not the end result achieved).

Yes. I'm now planning to combine certain The Dresden Files peculiarities with WOD - for my probably doomed project of urban fantasy in low fantasy setting (because last books in Dresden Files, while I love the series, made me utterly tired of urban fantasy (and comic books also) shtick of keeping status quo of our real world despite all mad shenanigans of fae, vampires and secret occult societies.

So far I resolved that Paradox-like effect will be explained I think much simpler than in both Mages - by simple strain wizard is putting on structure reality while doing magic - and structure of reality, kept by Divine Alliance does not like to be tickled.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2021, 07:52:12 PM »
It’s called a syntactic magic system and it’s used in several rules sets including Ars Magica (which was the precursor to World of Darkness) and GURPS.
http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/2016/02/mechanics-syntactic-magic.html
Look, I know you hate WoD, so this drivel and mischaracterization is to be expected, but...

A) GURPS is literally the only system that calls it that (the ONLY other search results were in relation to HTML coding syntax that just happened to refer to the tricks they employed as magic) and the book you cite didn’t come out until nearly two decades after Mage.

B) Ars Magica doesn’t use the Mage system (inside the system its just “Hermetic Magic” and the players generally call it “Noun/Verb” magic since its based on combining an action word with a subject to produce the effect.

C) GURPS also considers Noun/Verb to be the actual “Syntactic Magic” with the Mage style of spheres just being the easiest to set up under that by building the verbs into the nouns you wish to be your areas of control (which they call Realm Form).

D) Neither includes Paradox as a limiting factor for performing certain magics, but have other limits set.

So, nice try, but No, Mage’s system is NOT “Syntactic Magic” (and indeed, doesn’t even require words so, as a name for it, it’s a piss poor fit for the system regardless).

ETA: did I or did I not tell you about the summoning power the phrase "consensual reality" has? Thanks for proving me right BCT.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 08:00:48 PM by Chris24601 »

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2021, 08:39:38 PM »
Oh, you're one of those. Everything is partisan politics to you.
If by "those" you mean a MAGA-loving Roman Catholic, then yes, I'm one of "those."avenclaw style PC" while they could take a look at the 4E or 5e wizard and absolutely see how the basics of emulating the HP-style casting in the system would work.
No, I meant your RPG preferences. Partisan politics is just as toxic in games as it is in elections. You're raging like a typical [pick a side] in the culture wars... over a game.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2021, 09:02:11 PM »
It’s called a syntactic magic system and it’s used in several rules sets including Ars Magica (which was the precursor to World of Darkness) and GURPS.
http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/2016/02/mechanics-syntactic-magic.html
Look, I know you hate WoD, so this drivel and mischaracterization is to be expected, but...

A) GURPS is literally the only system that calls it that (the ONLY other search results were in relation to HTML coding syntax that just happened to refer to the tricks they employed as magic) and the book you cite didn’t come out until nearly two decades after Mage.

B) Ars Magica doesn’t use the Mage system (inside the system its just “Hermetic Magic” and the players generally call it “Noun/Verb” magic since its based on combining an action word with a subject to produce the effect.

C) GURPS also considers Noun/Verb to be the actual “Syntactic Magic” with the Mage style of spheres just being the easiest to set up under that by building the verbs into the nouns you wish to be your areas of control (which they call Realm Form).

D) Neither includes Paradox as a limiting factor for performing certain magics, but have other limits set.

So, nice try, but No, Mage’s system is NOT “Syntactic Magic” (and indeed, doesn’t even require words so, as a name for it, it’s a piss poor fit for the system regardless).

ETA: did I or did I not tell you about the summoning power the phrase "consensual reality" has? Thanks for proving me right BCT.
I have no clue what you’re going on about. What I was trying to say is that you don’t have to keep calling a WoD magic system. You can call it the setting-neutral “syntactic magic”, “verb/noun,” “realm-based”, “praxis/nemesis,” etc.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2021, 09:18:10 PM »
I think it's important to remember that fighters and magic-users were fairly well balanced.

The only edition where fighters and magic-users were "fairly well balanced" was 4e which, coincidentally was also the most hated of editions.

I mean I am sure that some people thought that playing a 1st level magic user with his 1 hp wearing a non magical dress and armed with a stick was balanced because one day he may be able to cast Wish.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2021, 09:45:41 PM »
No, I meant your RPG preferences. Partisan politics is just as toxic in games as it is in elections. You're raging like a typical [pick a side] in the culture wars... over a game.
I'm not the one decrying how other people play, nor was I in any way raging. I just disagree with your conclusions about influences on WotC-era D&D and whether said influences are good or bad.

You like OSR and that's fine. I don't like the OSR and prefer 4E, that should be fine too if you're not one of the OneTrueWayist OSR assholes I've had the misfortune of knowing.

I have no clue what you’re going on about. What I was trying to say is that you don’t have to keep calling a WoD magic system. You can call it the setting-neutral “syntactic magic”, “verb/noun,” “realm-based”, “praxis/nemesis,” etc.
Well, seeing as how I was specifically referencing the actual Mage the Ascension game system (because I actually like the game) and all it's attending mechanics, calling the mechanics by one of your dumbass terms wouldn't be as clear as just saying "the Mage magic system."

The only edition where fighters and magic-users were "fairly well balanced" was 4e which, coincidentally was also the most hated of editions.
Pretty much. I mean AD&D had better high end balance than 3e, but it also had a rather atrocious low end that overrewarded fighters.

Frankly, I consider any system based around balance across the entire level range (versus at each level) to be horrible design since it's way too easy for games to never cover all of the levels and leave one or more players sucking for the entire campaign.